IAB Minutes 1992-07-17 | Internet Architecture Board

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 1992»IAB Minutes 1992-07-17

Internet Architecture Board

Meeting Minutes — July 17, 1992

Cambridge, MA (IETF Meeting)

CONTENTS/AGENDA

1. STANDARDS ACTIONS

2. IAB RELATIONSHIP TO IETF

3. VENDOR PROPRIETARY WORK IN IETF

4. ANSI AFFILIATION

FOREWARD

This document contains minutes of the meeting of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) held on July 19, 1992 at the IETF meeting in Cambridge, MA. The attendees were:

IAB Members:

[Absent members: Hans-Werner Braun, Dan Lynch]

IESG Members:

The meeting was convened at 1:35 PM.

1. STANDARDS ACTIONS

1.1 X.25 Encapsulation to Proposed Standard

The ExecD pointed out that the DISCUSS had been removed, and he recommended passage of the action. The IAB agreed to adopt the specification as a Proposed Standard.

1.2 BGP/OSPF Interface Spec to Proposed Standard

The following concern was raised: At the time of BGP passage, it was noted that BGP configuration inconsistency can lead to routing loops and other bad things, but that the consistency could and would be enforced in the individual IGP interfaces, and in particular in the interface to OSPF. It is not clear from the BGP/OSPF spec how this issue is addressed.

Lauck: BGP configuration inconsistency can cause problems only in obscure cases. Cerf: We really need a general solution for configuration consistency checking. Chiappa: Freedom from the possibility of misconfiguration would be a desirable property of routing protocols. Almquist: This is a very hard problem, and probably the subject for research. Lauck: Could build a routing system that requires minimum configuration, at least in principle, but that would be counter-cultural.

IAB consideration of this is not yet complete.

1.3 IDPR to Proposed Standard

Chiappa discussed the concerns that had been raised about IDPR, and noted that link-state and distance-vector supporters will never agree.

A concern was raised that this is still research. Braden: It would be a good candidate for the new Prototype designation. Cerf: how much experience is there with the code? Hinden: at least a year.

The IESG felt that the IDPR working group has more than met the formal requirements for a routing protocol, and that deploying it will have no negative impact. Since the IDPR WG followed the rules, the protocol should be accepted into the standards track.

IAB consideration of this is not yet complete.

2. IAB RELATIONSHIP TO IETF

The IAB and IESG members present discussed what actions should be taken in response to the discussion in the open plenary on the preceding day.

It was agreed that the first step should be to send out a message to the IETF summarizing what the IAB and IESG heard at the meeting. Cerf volunteered to draft such a message over the weekend and to submit it to the IAB and IESG for approval.

The next step will be to form a group to develop recommendations on the future IAB/IESG/IETF relationship. There was a discussion, but not complete agreement, on how best to form this group, to maximize the chances of a constructive outcome, to the benefit of the entire community. Using email would open it to a larger constituency than IETF attendees, but some felt that email has proven inappropriate for charged issues. Further discussion on this point is needed.

3. VENDOR PROPRIETARY WORK IN IETF

The following points were made.

The IETF must have change control.
It is not clear that we can have real change control on only a small part of a stack.
The overhead of managing this effort is not clearly worth much unless the goal is integration and unification.

4. ANSI AFFILIATION

ANSI has approached ISOC about affiliating with ANSI. It is not clear to ANSI how to be THE American Standards body when such a large area of activity is not one of its affiliates.

The sense of the IAB was that, since the IAB and ISOC are interna- tional; it would be unappropriate to open liaison with ANSI without making provision for liaison with other national standards bodies.